there you go. guess what, jealosy wont help your PL. last time I checked the US had laws that allowed private enterprise to make mistakes and waste money but of course people want suspension of laws so they can decapitate the fellow who makes more money just so they can stop feeling inferior
Hey gimme a break. I'm not advocating oil companies (who make much more in profit) get taxed. In fact, I think their margins are justified and our wealth transfer to them is a sign of our own collective stupidity. We deserve it, and I'm not jealous about it. GS is another story - just a function of being the right arm of the treasury, and really ultimately angers me because they really are NOT creating anything worth that type of compensation, nor taking true risk (to their personal balance sheets) to earn it. I'll give all the credit in the world to the people who develop lifesaving drugs, take care of the sick, engineer great technology that moves society forward, etc. But finance mastery only marginally enables some of what I mention above. And more often than not, it is about arbitraging inefficiencies of allocation of government capital - that ultimately comes from us all collectively. In the end, the contribution of financing probably balances out with the wealth *destruction* they facilitate, making it a wash. They are bunch of ivy league kids with silver spoons that hide behind a brand name in the guise of 'great talent.' Nothing entrepreneurial or capitalistic about it, just nepotism gone unchecked, at the taxpayer's expense. I'm not afraid to call it how it is and give credit to where it is due, to the truely worthwhile people in society. I could even argue oil companies provide something more worthwhile - energy. Without them, I couldn't move around so easily. So at least they earn it.
He is right, there is nothing special about Goldman Sachs besides its high end connections. Anybody in the industry who knows what's up, avoids dealing with Goldman unless they like dealing with slime that cannot be trusted. If you cannot see the obvious blatant conflict of interest that Henry Paulson is, you are a moron, plain and simple. Paulson was going crazy for this bailout, while Goldman was diving. Fact is that neither Goldman, nor Merrill nor Morgan Stanley were going to survive this without the government saving them.
Are you retarded? I don't think anyone truly cares about the bonuses unless they are jealous. Let them pay $100 billion if they want, but out of their own company capital and/or (retained) earnings. I won't even touch the fact that they running a thieving operation, that's what most of finance is. The fact is that Goldman DOES NOT HAVE $ 7 billion to pay. If their shareholders are willing to accept stock dilution to raise these funds, let them. If their debtors are willing to finance more debt, let them. But taking bailout money for this is corruption at the highest order, considering it was their own boy Paulson who is the creater of this bailout scam. It's robbery in plain view, but so many people have been so dumbed down, they can't even see it.
Of course, why even have this arguement. Just put the few idiots on ignore in this thread like I just did. I mean if someone can't figure this out then the only thing they can add to this board trading wise is utter noise.
lol. you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. GS generates almost $70b in revenues a year and guess from where bonuses are paid, thats right revenues. now how come arguing about this subject got you enraged lead you offend me, it isnt hard to guess why
Bonuses are CALCULATED based off of revenues. But to get the money to pay out the bonuses - that comes from operating free cash flow - which according to Yahoo Finance was negative -$14.57B for trailing 12 months. Therefore to get the cash to pay out bonuses, GS will have to dip into it's existing cash reserves of $949B, seems like more than enough to pay out bonuses right? But Goldman was the one who was complaining that they had insufficient collateral (i.e. cash or high quality assets that are not CDOs) to continue to make loans and provide financing - so they cried that they needed the 'liquidity injection' aka bailout. Therefore if we believe Goldman when they say: 'We have insufficient liquidity without a bailout' then that implies they have insufficient liquidity to pay out bonuses. Thus it was the bailout which did allow them to pay out bonuses And for those of you who are actually surprised at this lack of business ethics and are up in arms: Welcome to Wall Street.
They can pay out the bonuses from ANY type of cashflow(not just operating), that includes the warren buffett money, plus their existing reserves. Now show me a quote from the management saying they had insufficient cash and collateral to continue their funding operations. or evidence that they wanted to get tarp money when in fact it was forced down 9 banks